Testing Positive and Being Contagious

[SpringPen]

I feel confused.

Current guidance (not a directive, of course) is 5 days avoiding contact with others if you test positive or have symptoms. If you feel well enough to be going about your normal activities, you're good to go.

Does this mean that the majority of people will be non-contagious after 5 days, despite a continued positive result on LFT? I know you don't have to test at all anymore but I feel this is morally dubious in some cases. The information still clearly says that some people will still be contagious for up to 10 days, with first symptomatic day as day 0.

I currently have COVID and am on around day 6 (very hard to be specific, as I had the tail end of something else just before getting COVID), so strictly speaking, have done my 5 days. I am still testing positive. I have an event on Saturday evening that I'd like to attend, which will potentially be day 10, although could be anywhere from day 9 to 12, due to not being super sure when my symptoms started. So, strictly speaking, I could potentially still be contagious until Sunday/Monday. The event will definitely be attended by a lot of people aged over 65.

Current guidance says I can go unless still feeling too unwell, in which case I wouldn't be going anyway, but morally, should I test on Saturday evening before I go out and not go if still positive? It's all so confusing and annoying!

At day 10 and if you are feeling well I'd go to event.
I've just tested positive and had to pull out of tomorrow Xmas work do, also feeling unwell. I'm hoping I feel better next week so I can go to some planned events.

In your position I would test and, if positive, not go.
I’m aware I’m in a minority though.
I have a vulnerable loved who is currently really poorly with Covid, despite having an antiviral iv infusion 2 days ago .

Assuming this variant is similar to previous ones, you are much less contagious by day 5 and hardly at all by day 10 (if day zero is the onset of symptoms rather than the day of exposure to infection).

https://www.bdi.ox.ac.uk/news/the-timing-of-covid-19-transmission

I find it really difficult. On the one hand, when lots and lots of people are (quite understandably) following the current guidelines, whereby they don't have to stop their usual activities at all if they still feel up to it, or at the most avoiding contact with others for a five day period, why should I do anything different? There could be plenty of people at the event with COVID who are following the guidelines. Should it not be that those who are vulnerable stay away from such events, knowing that COVID could easily be the result of attending? We can't all miss out on living life and doing the things we enjoy. For context, I'll already have missed two other events when I felt well enough to attend (day 1 and tomorrow) because I didn't want to pass it on.

On the other hand, I'd feel blooming awful if one of those older people attending became seriously unwell because of me. I'm hoping I'll be negative by Sat but I have this feeling I won't be. It took me 11 days to go neg last time.

Honestly this close to Christmas, despite the lack of rules now, I think it would be morally wrong to go out socialising whilst still testing positive. There is the potential to really muck up other people's Christmases.

If a positive test means you're contagious, why is the guidance five days? I literally know nobody who has gone negative in that timeframe.

Because people need to get back to work basically. Extended isolation isn't really viable for society in the long-term

I mean as we've seen from the enquiry the advice and guidance didn't really mean anything during the pandemic so it's hard to put any faith in it now. If you feel ill then don't go. If you feel better then go I guess but don't go near people that you know to be vulnerable as you wouldn't if you had any other virus. There is a bit of an anecdotal spike in covid currently. And I suspect more people have it than know they have it as most people don't test anymore. So anyone going anywhere currently is risking catching it and if they are vulnerable then that's their considered risk really.

Because you are much less contagious by then. The guidance is trying to strike a balance between reducing infection but being realistic of what is reasonable to ask of people.

Well, some people would say that vulnerable people like over 65s should stay away from events all the time, so that non-vulnerable people don't feel any obligation to stay away even just occasionally when they have tested positive for covid. That doesn't seem completely fair though.

I don't think I would go when infectious, even if I knew everyone there was theoretically completely healthy. Anyone can get a bad bout of covid that puts them out of action for a week or more. Even people who get it mildly have increased risks of heart attack and stroke, and even young people can get long covid.

Basically, it's a nasty enough disease that I think you're right, there is a moral issue to do with going out when knowingly infectious. (Of course some people get round that by not testing so they don't know they're infectious, even if they suspect it.)

As for why the official guidance is five days - I think if they thought about it at all (and having heard what we've heard about eat out to help out, you have to wonder if they did), they picked that with the aim of reducing some infections, but knowing perfectly well it would not stop them all as some people will still be quite infectious well after five days.

They decided that those extra infections wouldn't cause anything too catastrophic to happen to the NHS (although they will still lead to things like cancelled operations of course), and that they would let other businesses keep functioning. So they decided they were acceptable extra infections. Basically it was a decision made more for the economy than for public health.

If we want our local community to get the health benefits of fewer covid infections, we have to make our own decisions to go by test results rather than just by the five day limit, since no rules or guidelines are going to encourage us to do that.

Unfortunately, the more people get covid, the more end up with long covid, and end up unable to work. So decisions made for the short-term benefit of the economy can backfire in the end and leave us with workforce problems (we've now got record numbers of people out of the workforce due to sickness).

I think dragonpen has it right when assuming that the five day guidance is driven by work reasons than socialising.

We need people to be able to work if they feel well enough. Socialising will have dropped off the agenda guidance wise.

Personally I think vulnerable people now have no choice but to make their own decisions as to how much they want to attend social functions. Given the asymptomatic transmission they just can never be certain that they won't come into contact with covid or indeed any other illness.

If you're still positive on Saturday, I personally wouldn't go. It's just not fair to risk giving it to others this close to Xmas and all that that entails!

I’m going to go against the grain and say there will likely be plenty of other people there with COVID. It was different when we all were living with the strict COVID rules, because if you went then you would be the person infecting the whole room. Now, there will be lots of people there with it, it won’t make a difference if you go or not. People will just catch COVID there from someone else. You are also at the very end of the infection anyway so you are likely not to be contagious by then anyway.

When I had covid earlier this year I still tested positive on day 11 so I stopped at that point and carried on as normal. I'm lucky in that I can WFH but if I couldn't I would have been able to stay off that long.

There is no guidance now.
Drs are performing operations when they’re positive with Covid at the hospital I work in if they feel well.
We can’t all isolate and given most people don’t test, I wouldn’t worry!

Because CEO of Delta airline put pressure on the American government and we adopted the same policy. It was never based on evidence of contagion or transmissibility.

I tested positive on Sunday after feeling unwell since the end of last week. I've probably infected people unknowingly during that time. I'm currently off school as I don't feel well enough to go in. I'm not sleeping and the vivid dreams are scary (anyone else had this?) I am shivering and lethargic after doing a small amount of bits and bobs around the house. I am still showing as a bright red line on test today so I don't feel morally that I should go into the classroom and potentially infect others. There's a difference between not knowing and knowing that you have it and then mixing among others. We have vulnerable adults and children within school, as well as some I work with. Therefore I don't intend going in for the remainder of the week. I'm gutted to be missing out as this is a lovely time of year. However I feel that there's less chance of wrecking Christmas for others. Covid is still quite brutal. I'm fullly vaccinated and Coeliac and my spleen is compromised which means I don't fight off infection easily.

Do what you feel up to doing, and bin the tests.

Daisies12 yes I get where you're coming from. It's a balance of carrying on as normal and being conscious. I only tested at the weekend as I bought a NEXT diffuser (and NEXT fragrances are strong) I couldn't smell a thing. This prompted me to test. Which once you know you have it it makes you think differently.

I agree that you can't help thinking differently once you know you definitely have it. However, we will not be testing anymore after this latest round and will be following guidance and common sense - if too ill to go about our usual activities, we'll avoid others (it's a natural consequence of being too ill to do things anyway) and if we feel under the weather but well enough to crack on, then we will do so. COVID is crap but I do think that those who are vulnerable or fearful of COVID need to make their own decisions about how to live their lives, not expect that others will go on restricting their own lives to prevent them getting it. I think most people accepted the need to do this in 2020 lockdowns but we have moved into a living with COVID phase now and whilst I truly sympathise with those who fear catching it due to vulnerability, I don't think that the very vast majority, for whom it will be a self-limiting, mild illness (and by mild, I don't mean that it isn't unpleasant, just that it's not life-threatening or needing hospital treatment and can be managed at home, in the same way flu can) can be expected to curtail their lives any further. I think it is personal choice now. If I was going to see my elderly parents in law at their home or knew I'd come into contact with someone undergoing chemo (just examples) I'd explain I was poorly and stay away if unwell, but I wouldn't stop going out or going to the shops as long as I felt fit enough to do so, just because I had cold symptoms. It's not a practical way to live, especially when you have young children who pass on a high number of such viruses every year.